Hi. I believe in the right to bear arms. Even though I don't own any guns, I feel the idea of the government controlling citizens' rights to purchase such things as silly, at best. I am absolutely not interested whatsoever in going anywhere near an argument pro vs. anti guns.
Now with that out of the way, can you please help me understand something? What I want to know is what is the philosophical or judicial reasoning behind interpreting "right to bear arms" as right to bear *all* or *many types* of arms. As opposed to, say, having one single model of handgun or long arm available for general purchase?
Is it because of conventional or understood interpretation of the phrase "shall not be infringed?"
Imagine if the government only allowed one model of car and truck to be sold.
Same concept
>>30392768
Read the Federalist Papers.
>>30392780
So it's a consumer rights thing?
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely get what you mean, and I completely accept it. What I'd like, is to get the legal, judicial, rhetorical, or historical precedent or reasoning that supports the position.
>>30392839
It started with SNBI when everyone was making muskets, then capitalism took over and everyone started making their own. The only legal thing that is or needs to be said is SNBI for why we can have so many, and then capitalism/scientific development/etc for why there are so many.
>a thread died for this
>>30392768
Freedom, son.
And the Bill of Rights restricts what the government can do, not the people.
>>30392827
Roger. Will do. Found on Gutenberg; sharing link:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/1404-h/1404-h.htm
>>30392768
>right to purchase such things as silly at best
>>30392894
This is a very satisfying answer, and I think it's a good one. Especially the reminder re limitation on government. Thank you.
>>30392918
As you wish, but I don't agree. Not here for that argument right now, though.
>>30392839
Because try to conceal carry a TC Contender, expect an arthritic 70 year old to shoot a .44, or try to cleanly harvest game with a .32.
In non gun terms, why are there different hammers, different screws?
Different tools for different jobs.
Also innovation. There are always shortcoming to be resolved, and new technologies that can be used. Forcing a monopoly would grind it to a halt. The military does not pull guns out of thin air, it looks at consumer options and requests modifications. When it does try to pull something from nothing, we get an expensive flop (see: the numerous MHS attempts by the military, the M60, et al.). This restriction limits individual and national security.
Or the opposite: what is the point of restricting the number of designs? what is gained to offset the numerous concrete losses?
>>30392960
Do you actually have autism? Speak like a normal person holy fuck
>>30392971
Again, I agree with you in that there should be variety. I'm just curious about this potentially alternate interpretation, and that's what I'm asking about. I don't for a second think that this potential alternate is legit, mind you.
>>30392990
Oh good! The retards have arrived!
>>30392992
Then let me abridge to this:
Government has no authority to do so, and lots of bad would happen if they did it anyway.
If you want to see why the government is unlikely to change this, look at countries in the EU- countries which place such limitations on their private sector must use empirically inferior bureaucratically-engineered designs, or be at the economic mercy of a country which has not limited private designs.
>>30393076
This makes sense to me. Thank you.
>>30392990
>accusing someone of autism for having a writing style
Projection.
>>30392768
>what is the philosophical or judicial reasoning behind interpreting "right to bear arms" as right to bear *all* or *many types* of arms. As opposed to, say, having one single model of handgun or long arm available for general purchase?
To boil it down, 2A basically gives citizens to arm themselves in the same way that the Military does, without exception. There is historical precedent in this, in that some (many?) of the cannons that were used early on in the Revolutionary War were privately owned, maintained and operated by local militias. When it came time to go to war, they used them to defend themselves against the Bongs.
Philosophically speaking, there is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to own a Howitzer, Tank or flame thrower, as long as I am able to: afford it, use it in a safe manner, and not harm anyone else with it. This is no different then a private citizen being able to own a large dump truck, chainsaw or soldering iron. In the hands of an idiot, they can be extremely dangerous or deadly, but simply by virtue of "what if" scenarios should not define what can, and cannot be owned by a private citizen. The reason for why someone can own any of those things is because we have been given the freedom to do so under the Constitution.
>>30393195
>we have been given the freedom to do so under the Constitution
Negative. The Constitution enumerates our human rights that we are endowed with by our creator at birth.
It was written as a plainly stated rulebook for what the government was allowed to do.
>>30393294
Ah, darn! You're right anon. Been drinking too much tonight.
>>30393294
Oh. Does that change or affect >>30392768?
>>30393364
Dammit, I meant >>30392905
>>30393294
>our creator at birth.
do you mean your mother or your father?
Aren't they both your creators? plural
>>30392894
>>30393380
I'm terrible.
For real, this one: >>30392894
If I mess this up again, I mean the one starting with "Freedom, son."
>>30393002
>>30393131
>Comes to a mongolian telecommunications infrastructure board asking for legal, judicial (same fucking thing idiot), historical and rhetorical (do you know what rhetorical means?) information and then calls other people idiots.
You are the dunce cap in the corner. You are the one the teacher gives extra help to. You are the retard. Now fuck off and run your car in the garage.
>>30392918
>>30392990
Are you LEGITIMATELY RETARDED?
He said the IDEA of GOVERMENT controlling people's gun rights was silly, not whatever the fuck you interpreted.
LEARN2READ the FUCKING OP.
Don't start shit over nothing man.
